Monotheism is an inferior belief system

[micrometers]

At once Monotheism takes itself much more seriously than polytheism and at the same time is not as adept at explaining the world. With polytheism, different gods handle different aspects of life. The gods of different peoples can coexist in a way also.

Monotheism tends to result in forcible conversions and a far less rich "constellation" of gods. For instance, to an atheist, the tales of Odysseus are far more rich and interesting than the life of Jesus.

 

[Nebor]

As long as we're on the subject, Jesus has been pretty weak in his modern film roles. He pretty gets his ass beat and gets murdered. Look at all the recent movies featuring the polytheist gods of Greece and Rome. They're throwing lighting bolts from mountains, running around in super speed mode spearin' mother fuckers and generally just being badass. IMO that's one of the major reasons for waning Christianity in today's youth, no one wants to worship a pussy.

 

[micrometers]

As long as we're on the subject, Jesus has been pretty weak in his modern film roles. He pretty gets his ass beat and gets murdered. Look at all the recent movies featuring the polytheist gods of Greece and Rome. They're throwing lighting bolts from mountains, running around in super speed mode spearin' mother fuckers and generally just being badass. IMO that's one of the major reasons for waning Christianity in today's youth, no one wants to worship a pussy.

As someone who was once seriously into Christianity, yes, the whole martyr mindset that is at the core of the teachings is a TERRIBLE way to go about real life.

generally, christianity teaches the wrong life lessons and results in people caring more about abortion than about how to succeed in this world.

 

[Nebor]

As someone who was once seriously into Christianity, yes, the whole martyr mindset that is at the core of the teachings is a TERRIBLE way to go about real life.

generally, christianity teaches the wrong life lessons and results in people caring more about abortion than about how to succeed in this world.

Personally, I've reached success atop of mountain of aborted fetuses. I'm not saying it's the only way, but it's a way.

 

[momeNt]

So is your new thing here taking a side on a topic based on personal belief systems (see: religion and abortion thread) and calling the opposition a slew of strong words such as inferior, stupid, and untenable?

If so, its going to be hard to generate decent conversation.

 

[Broheim]

As long as we're on the subject, Jesus has been pretty weak in his modern film roles. He pretty gets his ass beat and gets murdered. Look at all the recent movies featuring the polytheist gods of Greece and Rome. They're throwing lighting bolts from mountains, running around in super speed mode spearin' mother fuckers and generally just being badass. IMO that's one of the major reasons for waning Christianity in today's youth, no one wants to worship a pussy.

norse is where it's at!

 

[cybrsage]

At once Monotheism takes itself much more seriously than polytheism and at the same time is not as adept at explaining the world. With polytheism, different gods handle different aspects of life. The gods of different peoples can coexist in a way also.

Monotheism tends to result in forcible conversions and a far less rich "constellation" of gods. For instance, to an atheist, the tales of Odysseus are far more rich and interesting than the life of Jesus.

I think you forgot to resume your meds after all that drinking on New Year's Eve.

 

[blackangst1]

sage

 

[Steeplerot]

A curious topic, I already did my religion bashing for the week in another thread, -but well done with the polytheistic twist.

What I want to know are these montheistic gods asexual, or just hermaphrodites? How does he/she get their rocks off? Maybe they have angel orgies or something. Or maybe they are just really really insecure gods who cant attract a mate. (which is why they need to be worshiped all the time by followers who could imo be doing much more productive things here on earth)

Religion is funny, I wonder how many of these folks who actually wrote the "holy" religious texts laugh their asses off at "followers" naivety. -all the way to the bank (or whatever served as such in their times.)

You would think Christians for example would use their religion to make some of this cash money their god always needs for some odd reason instead of having others begging people on the streets like bums so their leaders can get bigger Cadillac to fondle children in or something, open up wine factories that need no grapes! Hallelujah!

Oh well, I said I was done. Oops.

 

[cybrsage]

Why would an immortal god need to have offspring?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Religion is funny, I wonder how many of these folks who actually wrote the "holy" religious texts laugh their asses off at "followers" naivety. -all the way to the bank (or whatever served as such in their times.)

Probably the same as people that achieve similar objectives under the guise of science.

The more things change the more they stay the same...

 

[Steeplerot]

Why would an immortal god need to have offspring?

Because sending angels down to rape/impregnate virgins is kinky to them to watch from up high? Good question.

 

[tommo123]

Why would an immortal god need to have offspring?

they didn't have the pill back then and gods gotta go bareback = little baby jesus

 

[GaiaHunter]

Because sending angels down to rape/impregnate virgins is kinky to them to watch from up high? Good question.

Because they can?

 

[mattpegher]

Ah, but are Christianity, Islam or Judaism really monotheistic. Each require the existence of The Devil to explain evil. And althought they like to spout particular rhetoric, the requirement for the devil makes the religion Ditheistic.

On a metaphysical note, can one assign physical characteristics such as number, sex, or appearence to a non-physical phenomena.

 

[zsdersw]

I care no more about people's religious beliefs than I do about some people's belief that Elvis is still alive. I look at both as being different shades of the same basic color.

Where I do care, though, is when religious and other faith-based beliefs are used in government to justify or form the basis of new laws or judge existing laws. It's not only silly, but potentially very disasterous; expanding the rights of some, savagely curtailing the rights of others.

 

[Vic Vega]

I care no more about people's religious beliefs than I do about some people's belief that Elvis is still alive. I look at both as being different shades of the same basic color.

Where I do care, though, is when religious and other faith-based beliefs are used in government to justify or form the basis of new laws or judge existing laws. It's not only silly, but potentially very disasterous; expanding the rights of some, savagely curtailing the rights of others.

Agreed.

 

[mattpegher]

I care no more about people's religious beliefs than I do about some people's belief that Elvis is still alive. I look at both as being different shades of the same basic color.

Where I do care, though, is when religious and other faith-based beliefs are used in government to justify or form the basis of new laws or judge existing laws. It's not only silly, but potentially very disasterous; expanding the rights of some, savagely curtailing the rights of others.

+2

 

[drebo]

Where I do care, though, is when religious and other faith-based beliefs are used in government to justify or form the basis of new laws or judge existing laws. It's not only silly, but potentially very disasterous; expanding the rights of some, savagely curtailing the rights of others.

What about murder?

It could be said that it is a faith-based law because of the 10 Commandments. Yes, it is part of common law, but likely took its roots back to the 10 Commandments, anyway. So, should it be struck from the law because of that?

What you are failing to do is to acknowledge a difference between religious fundamentalism and those who use religion as the basis for their own moral and ethical codes. This is the tactic that most liberals and "progressives" use and why their arguments never amount to anything more than name calling and derission.

Religious fundamentalism is always, and has always, been bad. You'll not find any argument from me (or most other religious people, for that matter.) But when you use the tiny percentage of religious fundamentalists and categorize EVERYONE who proclaims to be religious under the same banner, it just makes you look like a fool.

The fact is, though, that most people who are religious are because it offers them a moral and ethical guide that secular law does not provide. If some lawmakers want to use this ethical guide to draft secular law for the common good, fine.

The only problem is when a law is drafted that is passed for the purpose of establishing a religious tennant within the law. Passing a law that says murder and stealing are wrong, even though those are part of the moral code of Christianity, does not make those laws bad for society.

On the other hand, passing a law that says stem cell research should be banned because the Catholic Church is against it is a conflict of interest and a decision made not based on a moral code but based an explicit religious doctrine. These are the types of laws you should be opposing. Opposing laws simply because they have a foundation in the moral and ethical codes originally laid down by whatever religion is foolish.

To the OP: Aside from that, what the fuck business is it of yours what someone else wants to believe?

 

[zsdersw]

What about murder?

It could be said that it is a faith-based law because of the 10 Commandments. Yes, it is part of common law, but likely took its roots back to the 10 Commandments, anyway. So, should it be struck from the law because of that?

What you are failing to do is to acknowledge a difference between religious fundamentalism and those who use religion as the basis for their own moral and ethical codes. This is the tactic that most liberals and "progressives" use and why their arguments never amount to anything more than name calling and derission.

Religious fundamentalism is always, and has always, been bad. You'll not find any argument from me (or most other religious people, for that matter.) But when you use the tiny percentage of religious fundamentalists and categorize EVERYONE who proclaims to be religious under the same banner, it just makes you look like a fool.

The fact is, though, that most people who are religious are because it offers them a moral and ethical guide that secular law does not provide. If some lawmakers want to use this ethical guide to draft secular law for the common good, fine.

The only problem is when a law is drafted that is passed for the purpose of establishing a religious tennant within the law. Passing a law that says murder and stealing are wrong, even though those are part of the moral code of Christianity, does not make those laws bad for society.

On the other hand, passing a law that says stem cell research should be banned because the Catholic Church is against it is a conflict of interest and a decision made not based on a moral code but based an explicit religious doctrine. These are the types of laws you should be opposing. Opposing laws simply because they have a foundation in the moral and ethical codes originally laid down by whatever religion is foolish.

To the OP: Aside from that, what the fuck business is it of yours what someone else wants to believe?

You assume too much about what I am doing or failing to do. Murder should not be illegal because it's in the Ten Commandments. It should be judged wrong because it is the antithesis to the propagation of a happy and free society.

As for the rest of your comment, whether or not you see it... we're more in agreement than disagreement.

 

[BoberFett]

karmypolitics is an inferior troll.

 

[mattpegher]

You assume too much about what I am doing or failing to do. Murder should not be illegal because it's in the Ten Commandments. It should be judged wrong because it is the antithesis to the propagation of a happy and free society.

As for the rest of your comment, whether or not you see it... we're more in agreement than disagreement.

Yes, you two are really in agreement. The reason that murder and theft are part of the ten commandment is because they are the antithesis to the propagation of a happy and free society. You can believe that God chose to make that plain to his disciples or that people saw these things as wrong and utilized a religious context to enforce the concept. Either way many common laws and religious laws are there because there is non-religious reason for an ethical code.

You both also agree that when religious scriptures are used to discriminate and persecute someone without an ethical reason, then they are wrong.

Many seem to thing that just because their religious text says so, that makes it moral and ethical. Failing to realize that morality and ethics have definitions that are seperate from religous belief structures.

 

[HeXen]

norse is where it's at!

lol. agree!! we need to worship those who can get things done. not talk, that's Obama's job.

 

[micrometers]

I once spent some time near an Indian reservation. On the TV they showed documentaries and one thing that struck me was how older Indians often had this pained look while they talked about how white settlers viewed their folk religion as devil worship. Because Monotheism is so absolute, basically it holds that anyone else's belief = devil worship.

The Romans in contrast would often build temples in the lands they conquered that had the Roman gods side by side with the native gods.

basically, monotheism IMO is one of the most extreme and austere belief systems around. Everything from Christians who won't drink or dance to Muslims who tear down statues.

 

[IGBT]

eco-theism is the new rabbits foot. the eco-KOOKS are the blind and blinkered followers.